# Man tased 11 times, including his twig and berries



## Chris0nllyn

Here's the media report of the incident from Glendale PD:


			https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/azfamily.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/15/d15db876-2c17-11e9-a667-5ff95805151b/5c5e4438d7eb8.pdf.pdf
		


Here's the video the police released:


Here's the body cam footage:


The man (and woman) spent months in jail only to have the charges dropped once the body cam footage became available (the incident happened in July 2017). The officer was suspended for 30 days and is back out on the streets. 








						Abuse of Force: Body camera video shows man tased 11 times by Glendale officers
					

Video obtained by ABC15 Investigators shows what experts called "sadistic" and "outrageous" conduct by Glendale police officers.




					www.abc15.com


----------



## TCROW

It's only when these a-holes start losing their jobs and the entirety of their pension and retirement that this will stop.


----------



## BernieP

I can see both sides of the story.   When you get someone who is violently trying to resist, and is uncoopertavte (for whatever reason), you have 3 choices; the taser (non-lethal force); shoot them (lethal force); or let them walk.

The thing about Live PD is you get to see the encounter from start to end, no editing.
Maybe the officers are on best behavior because they know their being filmed.
But I've watched them punch a suspect when they were trying to cuff them, tase a suspect.
I do not condone police brutality, but if a suspect is going to resist, I go back to the options the officer has available.


----------



## GregV814

Chris0nllyn said:


> Here's the media report of the incident from Glendale PD:
> 
> 
> https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/azfamily.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/15/d15db876-2c17-11e9-a667-5ff95805151b/5c5e4438d7eb8.pdf.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the video the police released:
> 
> 
> Here's the body cam footage:
> 
> 
> The man (and woman) spent months in jail only to have the charges dropped once the body cam footage became available (the incident happened in July 2017). The officer was suspended for 30 days and is back out on the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abuse of Force: Body camera video shows man tased 11 times by Glendale officers
> 
> 
> Video obtained by ABC15 Investigators shows what experts called "sadistic" and "outrageous" conduct by Glendale police officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abc15.com



Hissy, I think you should write a stern letter of objection!!! Do it NOW!!!


----------



## Chris0nllyn

GregV814 said:


> Hissy, I think you should write a stern letter of objection!!! Do it NOW!!!



Using the free Wi-Fi at McDonalds in Prince Frederick again?


----------



## Lurk

LEOs should have probably moved on to lead and gunpower when it became obvious that the perps weren't affected by the TASERs.


----------



## LightRoasted

If I may ...

And they wonder why they are hated and loathed. Why no one respects them. And why many many people have zero f*cks in their pockets to give in the death of one. (Not that I condone it, just raising a point.) If they aren't careful, and reign in the mistreatment of people, by every department, across the Nation, there will come a point in time where some serious blowback might occur.


----------



## glhs837

So, here's the thing. I'm all for allowing the police to have the ability to use the force needed. But the "charges dropped once they were forced to release the bodycam". Everyone involved had a chance to see that footage and drop the charges within days of the event.  But the system hides it's dirty laundry, which leaves a bad smell. Trust is earned, and once you start hiding crap, trust gets eroded. The departments have to stop this crap of trying to sweep stuff under the rug and hope it goes away. It's not going to.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This should shed a light on how Police try and craft the narrative around an event. 

Think about this when you look at the Houston drug raid and the police's (and Union's) reponse to it. The narrative they crafted to shift the blame from them. 

It should also shed a light on the training they receive. It appears they train heavily on the proper techniques for pain compliance but skipped the portion that clarifies that a passenger is under absolutely no legal obligation to show their ID.


----------



## GURPS

glhs837 said:


> But the system hides it's dirty laundry, which leaves a bad smell. Trust is earned, and once you start hiding crap, trust gets eroded.



but Police just want to go home at the end of their shift


----------



## gemma_rae

Nothing good ever came from ticking off the Po-Po.

But it's very entertaining.


----------



## LightRoasted

If I may ...


GURPS said:


> but Police just want to go home at the end of their shift



As do boots on the ground service members wanting to go home after a six month or one year tour of combat duty. And yet, incidents such as this by our armed forces upon the enemy are extremely rare. Why? Because they follow orders, and the rules of engagement, and are professionals.


----------



## nutz

Kinda funny....for some reason Ive never been tased or drug out of my car. Maybe I had a bad upbringing, I was taught to be polite and cooperative.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

nutz said:


> Kinda funny....for some reason Ive never been tased or drug out of my car. Maybe I had a bad upbringing, I was taught to be polite and cooperative.


Exercising your constitutional rights is being uncooperative?


----------



## nutz

Chris0nllyn said:


> Exercising your constitutional rights is being uncooperative?


 Where in the constitution does it say that when being a jackass (shithead, etc) you get an automatic excusal from getting your ass kicked?


----------



## RoseRed

nutz said:


> Where in the constitution does it say that when being a jackass (shithead, etc) you get an automatic excusal from getting your ass kicked?


I just learned how to circumvent the spell-checker!


----------



## Chris0nllyn

nutz said:


> Where in the constitution does it say that when being a jackass (shithead, etc) you get an automatic excusal from getting your ass kicked?



Where does it say a passenger in a car has to provide ID, as the officer stated? You know, the entire premise behind the officer getting pissed off to begin with. The man not wanting to give his ID was well within his rights as an american citizen to do so. 

Americans exercising their constitutional rights should not agitate police, the ones who took an oath to uphold those rights, to the point that it becomes "uncooperative" so they can needlessly escalate the situation.


----------



## black dog

nutz said:


> Where in the constitution does it say that when being a jackass (shithead, etc) you get an automatic excusal from getting your ass kicked?



I was taught that Agents of the Government took an Oath to uphold The Constitution..


----------



## nutz

Chris0nllyn said:


> Where does it say a passenger in a car has to provide ID, as the officer stated? You know, the entire premise behind the officer getting pissed off to begin with. The man not wanting to give his ID was well within his rights as an american citizen to do so.
> 
> Americans exercising their constitutional rights should not agitate police, the ones who took an oath to uphold those rights, to the point that it becomes "uncooperative" so they can needlessly escalate the situation.


Where does it say you dont? I missed the part where the officer said give me your ID or Ill **** you up. I did hear him say if you dont have ID we will Go for fingerprinting.


----------



## nutz

black dog said:


> I was taught that Agents of the Government took an Oath to uphold The Constitution..


And they are also taught to uphold the laws of the jurisdiction they monitor. And they are not the judge, they only present their interpretation of the issue to a judge for his/her opinion. And the public has begged for changes in how they do business. Please dont pick little johnny out off the crowd because he wears a burka. Please dont use a gun, use a baton. Please dont use a baton, use a taser because its less hurtful. Oh wait, we didn’t know people flop around like a fish out of water when they get tased, dont do that. Please dont use skin color on air, dont call out number one or two male/female someone may get offended.
So if the public wasn’t taugh to rely on the po-po, we wouldn’t have them. The public has been taught not to do things for yourself, call someone from the government. 911 was brought about because people complained they couldn’t remember the number to call. Now they complain because the right services aren’t rendered quickly enough. Complaint upon complaint gets filed because it wasn’t done the way they wanted it.

IMO, I have 0 clue why anyone would try to do the job of a sworn officer (deputy/police/Marshall etc) the public wants them to do.


----------



## Salmon

Police should be classified as a domestic terror organization.


----------



## LightRoasted

If I may ...


nutz said:


> And they are also taught to uphold the laws of the jurisdiction they monitor.



Exactly. "Police", are enforcers of the corporation's, city, town, sometimes a County, etc., rules. With secondary enforcement of County and State laws. One only need to look at the resent failed attempt to incorporate Lusby. The only reason the proponents had in wanting to create and having a police force, was to enforce the municipality's rules. To punish and to get those deemed a nuisance in line. In addition to writing tickets, fining those failing to live up to draconian orders of the one way minded boards, to fill the coffers.


----------



## gemma_rae

Salmon said:


> Police should be classified as a domestic terror organization.


Do you like fish sticks?


----------



## black dog

nutz said:


> And they are also taught to uphold the laws of the jurisdiction they monitor. And they are not the judge, they only present their interpretation of the issue to a judge for his/her opinion. And the public has begged for changes in how they do business. Please dont pick little johnny out off the crowd because he wears a burka. Please dont use a gun, use a baton. Please dont use a baton, use a taser because its less hurtful. Oh wait, we didn’t know people flop around like a fish out of water when they get tased, dont do that. Please dont use skin color on air, dont call out number one or two male/female someone may get offended.
> So if the public wasn’t taugh to rely on the po-po, we wouldn’t have them. The public has been taught not to do things for yourself, call someone from the government. 911 was brought about because people complained they couldn’t remember the number to call. Now they complain because the right services aren’t rendered quickly enough. Complaint upon complaint gets filed because it wasn’t done the way they wanted it.
> 
> IMO, I have 0 clue why anyone would try to do the job of a sworn officer (deputy/police/Marshall etc) the public wants them to do.


 What law was the officer upholding with the passenger?


----------



## nutz

black dog said:


> What law was the officer upholding with the passenger?


Hard to say from the brief video presented. A presumption could be made that the suspect was being questioned under reasonable suspicion. We would also have to note that at no time did the suspect ask if he was free to go.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

nutz said:


> Hard to say from the brief video presented. A presumption could be made that the suspect was being questioned under reasonable suspicion. We would also have to note that at no time did the suspect ask if he was free to go.



Your response makes a _bit _more sense now. Not that I quite understand your stance that citizens calling the government is a bad thing, yet agree with the government's actions here. Anyway, not sure which video you're talking about when you say "brief video presented" as I posted 2 videos. One that the police released at first, and finally the body camera footage of the entire incident. 

The passenger was not being questioned under reasonable suspicion because it was a traffic stop and he wasn't driving. This info was in the very first link in the story. 
He can ask if is free to go all he wants but passengers are "seized" by a traffic stop and can't simply leave. Also, t courts have ruled that the test for determining whether a person is seized is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave under the circumstances, not just asking. You probably consider yourself a reasonable person. Do you think you can get out of the car and walk away if you were a passenger in a car that got pulled over?


----------



## black dog

Reasonable


nutz said:


> Hard to say from the brief video presented. A presumption could be made that the suspect was being questioned under reasonable suspicion. We would also have to note that at no time did the suspect ask if he was free to go.


 Suspicion of doing what? Telling Officer Mao No?     Thats when Officer Mao changed his attitude.
 We aren't required to carry papers unless we are driving the vehicle.


----------



## nutz

black dog said:


> Reasonable
> 
> Suspicion of doing what? Telling Officer Mao No?     Thats when Officer Mao changed his attitude.
> We aren't required to carry papers unless we are driving the vehicle.


 What stops officer Mao no from asking for ID? 0 Who but officer mao no knows (from the video) what reasonable suspicion he had?
You all feel free to mouth off and be uncooperative. Maybe, just maybe, Ill get to see a video of you doing the electric dance.


----------



## nutz

Chris0nllyn said:


> Your response makes a _bit _more sense now. Not that I quite understand your stance that citizens calling the government is a bad thing, yet agree with the government's actions here. Anyway, not sure which video you're talking about when you say "brief video presented" as I posted 2 videos. One that the police released at first, and finally the body camera footage of the entire incident.
> 
> The passenger was not being questioned under reasonable suspicion because it was a traffic stop and he wasn't driving. This info was in the very first link in the story.
> He can ask if is free to go all he wants but passengers are "seized" by a traffic stop and can't simply leave. Also, t courts have ruled that the test for determining whether a person is seized is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave under the circumstances, not just asking. You probably consider yourself a reasonable person. Do you think you can get out of the car and walk away if you were a passenger in a car that got pulled over?



I know that, as a passenger, I can walk away if (when) the officer tells me I am free to go.


----------



## black dog

nutz said:


> What stops officer Mao no from asking for ID? 0 Who but officer mao no knows (from the video) what reasonable suspicion he had?
> You all feel free to mouth off and be uncooperative. Maybe, just maybe, Ill get to see a video of you doing the electric dance.


I believe it would have had a different turn out if Officer Mao had relayed his reason of articular suspicion to the said passenger. 
*Officer Mao knows the law, and hes educated on how to get you to rat on yourself. *
  He starts with being your friend and asking for your papers and of course hes telling you that you have nothing to hide in your auto, so its not a problem for me to search it " Right " you have nothing to hide..  It matters not for if you say No, hes already called for a K9 to arrive on the
stop,
.
Officer Mao's dont like being told No.. I have told Officers Mao's that I have come in to contact with in my life "No", and I have been pushed around, threatened, harassed while being pulled over, but never have I been give the electric pony ride.

 Keep the Miranda words in your thoughts,  the best ones are, Anything you say, CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU...

We as citizens have allowed these actions to get way out of hand.


----------



## mitzi

Was anything found in the backpack?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

mitzi said:


> Was anything found in the backpack?


I imagine if they found something, the police would be more than willing to point it out to everyone.


----------



## mitzi

Chris0nllyn said:


> I imagine if they found something, the police would be more than willing to point it out to everyone.



I never read anything that they did, but I can miss a lot too.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

The reason for the stop was "turn signal" as stated by the officer on his body cam footage and in his report.

Except, the cops came from the opposite side of the parking lot and the controlling officer went straight to the passenger side first.


----------



## vraiblonde

I can't wait until Chris gets his way and law enforcement is abolished.  Total anarchy, no laws, just a free for all without the mean old po-po bothering people.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

vraiblonde said:


> I can't wait until Chris gets his way and law enforcement is abolished.  Total anarchy, no laws, just a free for all without the mean old po-po bothering people.



Too bad the story isn't about the FBI. Then you'd be all in. 



vraiblonde said:


> I wouldn't trust the FBI to investigate their own belly button lint.  It's already been proven that they will say what is politically expedient, regardless of the truth.





vraiblonde said:


> It shouldn't surprise anyone that the FBI is corrupt.  We've only been watching it play out in every single news outlet every single day for the last year and a half.





vraiblonde said:


> You know, I always thought of the FBI as elite.  The cream of the law enforcement crop.  In the last year they have been exposed as a bunch of dumbasses who don't have enough judgement or smarts to be allowed outdoors unsupervised.  Those texts between Strzok and Page read like something out of middle school.  So shockingly immature and ignorant I thought for sure they were just two coffee-getters, but nope - they are senior agents.  Freaking Comey with his snark and book peddling.  Toady suckup McCabe, lying his ass off like some kindergartner.  And now this moron.
> 
> WTH, FBI???
> 
> It's like Trump pulled back the carpet to show the rotting wood and larva that was destroying the floor.





vraiblonde said:


> The FBI will find what the politicians tell them to find.  At this point it's pretty clear both parties want to destroy our country - loot and pillage just like in the good old days.  And it's not like the FBI is some bastion of justice and integrity.
> 
> Watch and see.


----------



## LightRoasted

If I may ...



vraiblonde said:


> I can't wait until Chris gets his way and law enforcement is abolished.  Total anarchy, no laws, just a free for all without the mean old po-po bothering people.


Anarchy? Highly doubt it. If the "enforcers" were to just stick to common law violations, rather than the hundreds of thousands of let's-make-all-criminals-overnight-laws, then there would be no issue. As it is, millions and millions and millions of people get along everyday without any problems. If an interaction/incident does occur between another person, many many times, most often, an issue is taken care of without the need of an "enforcer".


----------



## TCROW

vraiblonde said:


> I can't wait until Chris gets his way and law enforcement is abolished.  Total anarchy, no laws, just a free for all without the mean old po-po bothering people.



Why do you always stand up straw men?

Anarchy doesn’t mean “no laws”. Look up the root of the word.


----------



## Kyle

TCROW said:


> Anarchy doesn’t mean “no laws”. Look up the root of the word.



a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"


synonyms:*lawlessness,* absence of government, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, riot, rebellion, mutiny, disorder, disorganization, misrule, chaos, tumult, turmoil, mayhem, pandemonium


----------



## TCROW

Kyle said:


> a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
> 
> "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
> 
> 
> synonyms:*lawlessness,* absence of government, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, riot, rebellion, mutiny, disorder, disorganization, misrule, chaos, tumult, turmoil, mayhem, pandemonium



Exactly. It doesn’t mean “no laws”. Thanks for the assist!


----------



## glhs837

vraiblonde said:


> I can't wait until Chris gets his way and law enforcement is abolished.  Total anarchy, no laws, just a free for all without the mean old po-po bothering people.




Wanting law enforcement to be accountable for acting illegally just like citizens isnt advocating anarchy.


----------



## Kyle

TCROW said:


> Exactly. It doesn’t mean “no laws”. Thanks for the assist!


 You are bat-crap certifiable. 

Who made the law in your sick twisted single-synapse mind?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

glhs837 said:


> Wanting law enforcement to be accountable for acting illegally just like citizens isnt advocating anarchy.



She knows that. It's just intellectually easier to prop up her straw man arguments.


----------



## BernieP

glhs837 said:


> So, here's the thing. I'm all for allowing the police to have the ability to use the force needed. But the "charges dropped once they were forced to release the bodycam". Everyone involved had a chance to see that footage and drop the charges within days of the event.  But the system hides it's dirty laundry, which leaves a bad smell. Trust is earned, and once you start hiding crap, trust gets eroded. The departments have to stop this crap of trying to sweep stuff under the rug and hope it goes away. It's not going to.


The problem is that the LE community includes the prosecutors, and to a degree the judges.
In most areas the top cop, the lead attorney and the judges are elected.   They have a vested interest in playing nice with each other.
Any attorney appearing before the court has the same problem, if they plan to run for office or just to stay on the right side of a judge.
Because of these relationships, things don't play out like they do in Hollywood.   You don't see ultruistic behavior, that self less attorney that challenges the system.  Not if they want to continue to work.


----------



## TCROW

Kyle said:


> You are bat-crap certifiable.
> 
> Who made the law in your sick twisted single-synapse mind?



No reason to be upset with me because if your own ineptitude. I realize you think your copy/paste job was meant as a counter to what I said, but it wasn’t. 

It is exactly repeating what I said. 

Bye now.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> Too bad the story isn't about the FBI. Then you'd be all in.



Right back atcha, babe.


----------



## vraiblonde

glhs837 said:


> Wanting law enforcement to be accountable for acting illegally just like citizens isnt advocating anarchy.



As it happens there are some among us who think cops ALWAYS act illegally and who ALWAYS want cops punished, even if said cops are just trying to protect their own safety.


----------



## BernieP

vraiblonde said:


> I can't wait until Chris gets his way and law enforcement is abolished.  Total anarchy, no laws, just a free for all without the mean old po-po bothering people.


No, it's called the constitution.  The constitution clearly states the limits of what the government, that includes law enforcement, can do.
The bill of rights was quickly added (amendments) to protect the citizens of the new country from the type of "law" enacted by the English.
Hence, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.   Now it's guilty until proven innocent.   When yuo accept the premise that if a cop stops you, you must have been doing something wrong, you are assuming guilt.   
Premise traffic stops are no differnt than "stop and frisk".   "Stop and frisk" has been challenged in many areas and shut down.  

If a vehicle is slowly driving up and down a stretch of road, is that suspicious behavior and is it sufficient for the vehicle to be stopped and searched?
What happens when I add that the driver was looking for a house that he had never been to before, for perfectly legitimate reasons?


----------



## BernieP

vraiblonde said:


> As it happens there are some among us who think cops ALWAYS act illegally and who ALWAYS want cops punished, even if said cops are just trying to protect their own safety.


an dthe same is true vice versa.   If you question LE, you must be a criminal.
As I've said, there are two sides to the story, (or more).
When it gets played out in the media, it's typically slanted to one or another side.

The nice thing about Live PD is you see both sides as it's played out.  

It's tough being out there on the street and having to deal with people who at times don't like you (just ask a dentist).
There are cases where people resist, and they have to be subdued.

The difference is in the initial approach, if the officer isn't threatening, the other side is likely to be more cooperative.
A heavy handed approach is going to result in resistance, particularly if the person hasn't done anything.


----------



## vraiblonde

BernieP said:


> If a vehicle is slowly driving up and down a stretch of road, is that suspicious behavior and is it sufficient for the vehicle to be stopped and searched?
> What happens when I add that the driver was looking for a house that he had never been to before, for perfectly legitimate reasons?



In that event it would be a simple case of:

_What are you doing?_
Trying to find a house.
_Let me see....okay, make a left on that road and it's up there about four houses._

See how that works?  I am not a person who automatically assumes the cop is my enemy, and am therefore not afraid to ask them for assistance.  I never assume a cop is addressing me because I've done something wrong.  I'm perfectly happy treating them like a human being and potential source of help.


----------



## vraiblonde

BernieP said:


> A heavy handed approach is going to result in resistance, particularly if the person hasn't done anything.



I understand completely that cops come into contact with the dregs of society every single day.  I also understand that they don't know me, and I understand how they become conditioned to be hard asses right out of the gate.  I'm okay with chilling the situation out rather than exacerbating it.

You, of course, can do as you please and suffer the consequences.


----------



## Kyle

vraiblonde said:


> You, of course, can do as you please and suffer the consequences.



And be sure to video it for entertainment purposes.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

vraiblonde said:


> I understand completely that cops come into contact with the dregs of society every single day.  I also understand that they don't know me, and I understand how they become conditioned to be hard asses right out of the gate.  I'm okay with chilling the situation out rather than exacerbating it.
> 
> You, of course, can do as you please and suffer the consequences.



What did the passenger do in this case that escalated the situation?


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> What did the passenger do in this case that escalated the situation?



It starts at roughly 1:30.

What's your name?
_Why do I have to tell you that??_

then

I don't want you stuffing anything down in between the seat.
_(guy stuffs something down in between the seat, and it's on)_

Clearly these punks were up to no good, and they're too dumb to finesse their way out of it.  At least the one guy is almost certainly on the books, otherwise there's no reason not to tell the cop his name and get him to go away so he can resume his meth smoking.  PS, sitting in a car and nobody has ID on them?  Um....so who's car is it?  And who drove it there?

I have no problem with dumb punks getting their nads tased.  Keep them from knocking up the local sluts and popping out more idiots.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

vraiblonde said:


> It starts at roughly 1:30.
> 
> What's your name?
> _Why do I have to tell you that??_
> 
> then
> 
> I don't want you stuffing anything down in between the seat.
> _(guy stuffs something down in between the seat, and it's on)_
> 
> Clearly these punks were up to no good, and they're too dumb to finesse their way out of it.  At least the one guy is almost certainly on the books, otherwise there's no reason not to tell the cop his name and get him to go away so he can resume his meth smoking.  PS, sitting in a car and nobody has ID on them?  Um....so who's car is it?  And who drove it there?
> 
> I have no problem with dumb punks getting their nads tased.  Keep them from knocking up the local sluts and popping out more idiots.



Remember this thread the next time you whine about other people not caring about the Constitution.

The passenger is under no legal obligation to provide ID. None. Police officers, being the LAW enforcement officers they are, should recognize that and not needlessly escalate the situation. He stuffed something? What was it? What did those cops find? Besides the coke can in his hand?

If they did something wrong, the police can and should investigate. Legally. The Constitution affords protections for ALL US citizens. Unfortunately, hot head and ego maniac police officers ruin cases because they don't do things by the book. You may not have a problem with it, but you should. You should care that police completely made up their PC for the stop, escalated the situation when a citizen was simply exercising their constitutional right, tazed him multiple times while he was tangled in the seat belt, pulled down his pants, and tazes him. You should care that due to the actions of that officer, taxpayers would be on the hook for any judgement and the officer keeps on going around town making up other crimes to pull others over, incorrectly knowing the law, and basing his actions on that misinterpretation of the law. 

No, besides exercising his rights as a citizen of this Country, what else do you feel he did to escalate the situation?

Why no comment on the fact that the cop lied about the PC for the stop in the first place?


----------



## MiddleGround

I don't understand what Chris, Blackdog, etc. are advocating for the police to do in this situation. Should they just react to a refusal to show proper ID with an "OK... nevermind. Free to go!?"

Or maybe, upon a refusal, the police should hold you where you are for 3-4 hours until a judge signs off on a warrant to search the vehicle and it's contents which include the person and possibly their ID.

What should be the proper course for LEO in this situation? Chris??


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> Remember this thread the next time you whine about other people not caring about the Constitution.



You asked a question, I answered it.

You can certainly get all huffy and risk a situation if you want to.  I, on the other hand, will continue to say "Hi officer, how can I help you?"  Again, there is right and there is dead right.  Unless you're just trying to win the ghetto lottery, then by all means pick fights with cops until your ticket comes up.


----------



## TCROW

MiddleGround said:


> I don't understand what Chris, Blackdog, etc. are advocating for the police to do in this situation. Should they just react to a refusal to show proper ID with an "OK... nevermind. Free to go!?"



If it’s not a detainment or Terry Stop then yes! That is absolutely what should happen, turn and walk away. That’s kind of the very essence of a legal detainment.

Good lord.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

MiddleGround said:


> I don't understand what Chris, Blackdog, etc. are advocating for the police to do in this situation. Should they just react to a refusal to show proper ID with an "OK... nevermind. Free to go!?"
> 
> Or maybe, upon a refusal, the police should hold you where you are for 3-4 hours until a judge signs off on a warrant to search the vehicle and it's contents which include the person and possibly their ID.
> 
> What should be the proper course for LEO in this situation? Chris??



If the entire reasn for the stop was because they didn't use a turn signal, then walk up to the driver and ask why they didn't use it. Ask for ID's and if someone besides the driver refuses, ticket or warn the driver. Done.

Of course, that's not really why they were pulled over. The officer could not have seen them turn, or their blinker usage. The officer went right to the passenger seat and got pissy when the passenger legally refused to provide his ID.

This officer has made it clear he is not interested in the law, so he'd just say he smelled something and search the car without the need for a warrant.



vraiblonde said:


> You asked a question, I answered it.
> 
> You can certainly get all huffy and risk a situation if you want to.  I, on the other hand, will continue to say "Hi officer, how can I help you?"  Again, there is right and there is dead right.  Unless you're just trying to win the ghetto lottery, then by all means pick fights will cops until your ticket comes up.



Yea, you CLEARLY watched a different video. (Notice it starts way before 1:30)

0:15 - Officer first says "anyone got IDs on them".
0:22 - When asked if the passenger needs one, the officer says "hey when you turn in here just make sure you throw on your turn signal for us". Driver then says she has her ID.
0:33 - Officer says "go ahead and grab it out real quick" and appears to run the ID of the rear passenger.
1:10 - Officer comes back and says "dont reach in your bag man". The man replies, "oh, okay, im sorry". The officer implies that because he said he doesn't have an ID he may have something (I guess if he had ID, he could reach in his bag?)
1:20 - Passenger asks why he's being asked for his name. The officer incorrectly states that "if you're a passenger in a vehicle, you need to have your ID". The passenger (correctly) states he doesn't have to provide it. The officer then says he's take him to the station to fingerprint him.
1:42 - Passenger tries remaining calm while the officer puts his notebook/ticketbook on top the car and says "we can do this one of two ways". The passenger tries multiple times to remain calm. Officer wants nothing to do with that in order to gain full compliance from someone, again, doing nothing illegal.
1:58 - Officer pulls tazer and tells the passenger he'll tase him he he tenses up.
2:10 - Passenger again asks what he did wrong. Officer says "A couple of things. One you don't have no ID on you."

How is this picking a fight? The man is literally doing nothign wrong. Nothing. And you're over here cheering on this sort of behavior. You rant and rave about the FBI not caring about the constitution when it involves Trump, but when local police do it, you just say "Well, if you just comply with unlawful and unconstitutional orders, you'll be okay and anyone who exercises their constitutional rights is obviously a criminal." You advocate for "guilty until proven innocent".


----------



## MiddleGround

TCROW said:


> If it’s not a detainment or Terry Stop then yes! That is absolutely what should happen, turn and walk away. That’s kind of the very essence of a legal detainment.
> 
> Good lord.


Very definition of a "traffic stop."

-A *traffic stop*, commonly called being pulled over, is a temporary *detention* of a driver of a vehicle by *police* to investigate a possible crime or minor violation of law.

Was this not a traffic stop? Regardless of how Chris believes the officers should have approached the vehicle.

Are you all saying that the focus of the temporary investigation should only be limited to the driver and everyone else in the vehicle should be immune from it? Or, are you saying that if the officer suspects a passenger then they need to detain the entire vehicle until a warrant is issued?


----------



## TCROW

MiddleGround said:


> Are you all saying that the focus of the temporary investigation should only be limited to the driver and everyone else in the vehicle should be immune from it?



Right, you are going to have to surrender your license if you’re the driver who was stopped. We don’t have a disagreement here. 

As far as your questions about any passengers, that’s not what I’m saying, that is what the law says and I agree with it.

UNLESS, there is PC to believe a passenger committed a crime and it turns into a Terry encounter for that passenger. It is then a legal detainment for that passenger, and the scope of the investigation is sufficiently narrow.

This is the way our legal system works.

What would you change about it given the opportunity?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

MiddleGround said:


> Very definition of a "traffic stop."
> 
> -A *traffic stop*, commonly called being pulled over, is a temporary *detention* of a driver of a vehicle by *police* to investigate a possible crime or minor violation of law.
> 
> Was this not a traffic stop? Regardless of how Chris believes the officers should have approached the vehicle.
> 
> Are you all saying that the focus of the temporary investigation should only be limited to the driver and everyone else in the vehicle should be immune from it? Or, are you saying that if the officer suspects a passenger then they need to detain the entire vehicle until a warrant is issued?



Driver. Notice the word driver. The man tazed was a passenger.

An officer has every right to _ask _for IDs from passengers. Consequently, passengers have every right to refuse to ID unless they are suspected of committing a crime and the officer has reasonable suspicion the passenger has, is, or about to, commit a crime.

A passenger's legal refusal to ID themselves to govt. agents should not be considered being uncooperative nor treated as such.

If the officer suspects the passenger of committing a crime, he can demand ID. But he needs more than just a hunch and more than "he's refusing to ID"


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> 0:15 - Officer first says "anyone got IDs on them".



If that's your idea of "provocation" you have some rage issues you might consider addressing.  And on that note, I'm not interested in arguing with you.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

vraiblonde said:


> If that's your idea of "provocation" you have some rage issues you might consider addressing.  And on that note, I'm not interested in arguing with you.



You quote "provocation" as if anyone has said it. 

You are arguing with voices in your head because it's clear you haven't the slightest clue what's going on in this case, nor the slightest concern about the Constutiton when it doesn;t suit your ridiculous arguments. It's probably best you scurry on.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> You quote "provocation" as if anyone has said it.
> 
> You are arguing with voices in your head because it's clear you haven't the slightest clue what's going on in this case, nor the slightest concern about the Constutiton when it doesn;t suit your ridiculous arguments. It's probably best you scurry on.




Yeah, yeah, you and your kindergarten insults.


----------



## LightRoasted

If I may ...



MiddleGround said:


> Was this not a traffic stop? Regardless of how Chris believes the officers should have approached the vehicle.


This was not a traffic stop. The cops see a car backing into a parking spot after they had turned into the parking lot from a back alley. The cop lied about the non-use of a turn signal as justification to harass. There was no violation of any traffic law, or any other law, for the cop to even stop, let alone ask for anyone's ID. So, from the very beginning of this fiasco, the cops are in the wrong.


----------



## vraiblonde

I think if any of you had a friend or a family member who was a cop, you would change your tune.


----------



## TCROW

vraiblonde said:


> I think if any of you had a friend or a family member who was a cop, you would change your tune.



Ah yes. The one two combo of the appeal to ignorance and appeal to emotion logical fallacies. And in a single sentence to boot!

Well done.


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> Very definition of a "traffic stop."
> 
> -A *traffic stop*, commonly called being pulled over, is a temporary *detention* of a driver of a vehicle by *police* to investigate a possible crime or minor violation of law.
> 
> Was this not a traffic stop? Regardless of how Chris believes the officers should have approached the vehicle.
> 
> Are you all saying that the focus of the temporary investigation should only be limited to the driver and everyone else in the vehicle should be immune from it? Or, are you saying that if the officer suspects a passenger then they need to detain the entire vehicle until a warrant is issued?



 detention of the DRIVER, No reason to speak to anyone else in the vehicle other than to say hello.


----------



## black dog

vraiblonde said:


> I think if any of you had a friend or a family member who was a cop, you would change your tune.


 My younger sister was a Deputy Sheriff in Jacksonville for 20 + years, BIL a Forensic Chemist that carries a LE badge, two friends are Montgomery Co MD officers, another on is a PG Co officer, one other a Calvert Co Deputy Sheriff. A few others that are Federal officers, Been around them for decades.
 They all took Oaths to uphold the Constitution, i'm weary and tired of agents of The Government stepping on citizens given Rights.


----------



## TCROW

vraiblonde said:


> I think if any of you had a friend or a family member who was a cop, you would change your tune.



I think if any of you had friend or family member GUNNED DOWN by a madman with a black scary looking "ASSAULT RIFLE" in a school, you'd change your tune on gun control.

<snicker>


----------



## black dog

TCROW said:


> I think if any of you had friend or family member GUNNED DOWN by a madman with a black scary looking "ASSAULT RIFLE" in a school, you'd change your tune on gun control.
> 
> <snicker>



No I wouldn't, the tool didn't do anything wrong. The person did.
I've never seen a gun, knife, hammer or 1,000's of other inanimate objects kill anyone, without a human operating it.


----------



## TCROW

black dog said:


> No I wouldn't, the tool didn't do anything wrong. The person did.
> I've never seen a gun, knife, hammer or 1,000's of other inanimate objects kill anyone, without a human operating it.



I forgot the sarcasm tag. I don't expect any rational American would. At least I'd hope.


----------



## black dog

TCROW said:


> I forgot the sarcasm tag. I don't expect any rational American would. At least I'd hope.



 Half of America believes that firearms can chase folks down and shoot them all by themselves... Or President Trump made them do it.


----------



## stgislander

black dog said:


> Half of America believes that firearms can chase folks down and shoot them all by themselves...



Only Glocks.


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> detention of the DRIVER, No reason to speak to anyone else in the vehicle other than to say hello.



Got it! So, according to you, TCROW, and Chris... if I am an offender (i.e. drug dealer, killer, etc.) and I get pulled over for a traffic violation then all I have to do is hand over the bag-o-crack to one of my passengers and I'm golden! Since, according to you all, they should be able to refuse to hand over proper ID, be immune to the investigation, and just be told "Hello."


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> My younger sister was a Deputy Sheriff in Jacksonville for 20 + years, BIL a Forensic Chemist that carries a LE badge, two friends are Montgomery Co MD officers, another on is a PG Co officer, one other a Calvert Co Deputy Sheriff. A few others that are Federal officers, Been around them for decades.
> They all took Oaths to uphold the Constitution, i'm weary and tired of agents of The Government stepping on citizens given Rights.



It is truely amazing how you seem to always know multiple people who are experts in the field of the topic at hand.

Thread about fossils... you know 17 people with PH.Ds in paleontology!
Thread about music... you know 12 people in the record business!
Thread about beer... you know the Busch family!

Truely amazing


----------



## TCROW

MiddleGround said:


> Got it! So, according to you, TCROW, and Chris... if I am an offender (i.e. drug dealer, killer, etc.) and I get pulled over for a traffic violation then all I have to do is hand over the bag-o-crack to one of my passengers and I'm golden! Since, according to you all, they should be able to refuse to hand over proper ID, be immune to the investigation, and just be told "Hello."



Yes, you're finally understanding.

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?


----------



## MiddleGround

TCROW said:


> Yes, you're finally understanding.
> 
> Why do you hate the Constitution so much?


If it was against the Constitution, then I am sure there would be a lawsuit every time a car got pulled over with more than just the driver.

Why do you hate personal responsibility so much?


----------



## TCROW

MiddleGround said:


> If it was against the Constitution, then I am sure there would be a lawsuit every time a car got pulled over with more than just the driver.
> 
> Why do you hate personal responsibility so much?



What does personal responsibility have to do with this?

The Constitution places limits on the government in terms of when we can be compelled to answer any questions they may have.

Explain to me precisely what your issue is with not speaking to an armed agent of the state when you're not compelled by law to do so?


----------



## MiddleGround

TCROW said:


> Explain to me precisely what your issue is with not speaking to an armed agent of the state when you're not compelled by law to do so?



During the traffic stop, the officer is conducting an "investigation." Non-compliance with the investigation can be paramount to obstruction. It is perfectly legal for the person to stay silent and not say anything however, they need to be prepared to be detained for an undetermined amount of time until the police are able to obtain a search and/or arrest warrant.


----------



## TCROW

MiddleGround said:


> During the traffic stop, the officer is conducting an "investigation." Non-compliance with the investigation can be paramount to obstruction. It is perfectly legal for the person to stay silent and not say anything however, they need to be prepared to be detained for an undetermined amount of time until the police are able to obtain a search and/or arrest warrant.



Well, if there's no PC, there is no detainment, so I'm not sure I really follow the logic in your scenario. If you're not detained, you are by definition free to walk away. "Investigations" happen all the time, but that doesn't mean that PC has been established. It just means you're involved in a voluntary conversation with the government, from which you can detach and walk away at any time.

To be clear: if the government can elucidate PC, then that is a detainment and you are not free to go. I don't think we disagree on this point. You still don't have to answer questions, but you run the risk of being taken down to the station. To further be clear, if a driver is suspected of holding drugs, everyone in the car will likely be detained. That's perfectly normal and legal.

But I really think this conversation is about a police encounter when there is no PC. And in the scenarios we've discussed, there's no PC. You just keep mentioning "personal responsibility". Where does that come into play in these scenarios?


----------



## MiddleGround

TCROW said:


> But I really think this conversation is about a police encounter when there is no PC. And in the scenarios we've discussed, there's no PC. You just keep mentioning "personal responsibility". Where does that come into play in these scenarios?



Personal responsibility in the form of knowing who you are associating with and knowing if what you are doing is right or wrong. If you have nothing to fear and you have done nothing wrong... why be afraid of providing ID to LEO that asks for it?

A better question that we all need to ask ourselves is why, since the "victim" was caucasian, this is not some national news item?


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> It is truely amazing how you seem to always know multiple people who are experts in the field of the topic at hand.
> 
> Thread about fossils... you know 17 people with PH.Ds in paleontology!
> Thread about music... you know 12 people in the record business!
> Thread about beer... you know the Busch family!
> 
> Truely amazing



 Quote the posts I made any of those statements...


----------



## black dog

MiddleGround said:


> *Personal responsibility in the form of knowing who you are associating with and knowing if what you are doing is right or wrong. If you have nothing to fear and you have done nothing wrong... why be afraid of providing ID to LEO that asks for it?*
> 
> A better question that we all need to ask ourselves is why, since the "victim" was caucasian, this is not some national news item?



So you are good with "Stop and identify and Stop and Frisk" then.


----------



## MiddleGround

black dog said:


> So you are good with "Stop and identify and Stop and Frisk" then.



I'm ok with providing ID to LEO if I am a passenger of a vehicle that has been pulled over. If I have done nothing wrong then I have nothing to fear.


----------



## TCROW

MiddleGround said:


> I'm ok with providing ID to LEO if I am a passenger of a vehicle that has been pulled over. If I have done nothing wrong then I have nothing to fear.



I have no problem if you’re OK with it. People voluntarily give up rights daily.

But just because you’re OK with it doesn’t mean others are. If you’re not willing to use our  Constitution as intended, don’t be surprised if it and the rights guaranteed by it disappears one day.

And stop pretending your approach is the only acceptable one, either from a legal or moral standpoint.


----------



## MiddleGround

TCROW said:


> I have no problem if you’re OK with it. People voluntarily give up rights daily.
> 
> But just because you’re OK with it doesn’t mean others are. If you’re not willing to use our  Constitution as intended, don’t be surprised if it and the rights guaranteed by it disappears one day.
> 
> And stop pretending your approach is the only acceptable one, either from a legal or moral standpoint.



What Constitutional right am I giving up by providing ID again?


----------



## TCROW

MiddleGround said:


> What Constitutional right am I giving up by providing ID again?



4th Amendment. That's a search and a seizure. 1st and 5th too if your run your mouth too much.


----------



## MiddleGround

TCROW said:


> 4th Amendment. That's a search and a seizure. 1st and 5th too if your run your mouth too much.



What exactly are they "searching" or "seizing" when they ask for identification? Like I said... you can always refuse to provide it but, there are consequences to that (i.e. being detained for a warrant) 
Are they searching your person for the ID or, just asking for it? Are they not returning your ID after it is provided?

I am not saying what happened in the video is right when it comes to the assault... keep that in mind.


----------



## TCROW

You previously wrote:



MiddleGround said:


> What Constitutional right am I giving up by providing ID again?



That was in response to:



TCROW said:


> But just because you’re OK with it doesn’t mean others are. If you’re not willing to use our  Constitution as intended, don’t be surprised if it and the rights guaranteed by it disappears one day.



Now you ask:



MiddleGround said:


> What exactly are they "searching" or "seizing" when they ask for identification? Like I said... you can always refuse to provide it but, there are consequences to that (i.e. being detained for a warrant)
> Are they searching your person for the ID or, just asking for it? Are they not returning your ID after it is provided?



Let's try this again.

You've freely given up your ID. Since your scenario didn't include any PC, there's no legal reason the government can compel you to do that. Since your scenario didn't include a legal detainment, you are by definition free to go. If you fork over your ID, you are doing that of your own freewill and volition. Since there's no _legal_ reason for you to comply with an ID request, you are waiving your 4th A rights.

Absent a legal detainment with PC, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protects you and allows you to decline the invitation from the government to share your ID with them. You're waiving those rights by giving them your ID when there's no compelling reason for you to do so.

It's perfectly OK if you want to be a "good guy". It's perfectly OK if you don't want to piss off a LEO because their jobs are hard enough. Nothing wrong with that at all. Just as there is nothing wrong with a citizen declining a voluntary request for ID from a LEO.


----------



## LightRoasted

If I may ...



MiddleGround said:


> What Constitutional right am I giving up by providing ID again?


You cannot give up a Right. You can only choose not to exercise a Right. A Right cannot be taken away, from anyone, but a Right exercised, can be punished and criminalized by tyrants.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

LightRoasted said:


> If I may ...
> 
> 
> You cannot give up a Right. You can only choose not to exercise a Right. A Right cannot be taken away, from anyone, but a Right exercised, can be punished and criminalized by tyrants. *Including those tyrants that cheerlead it.*



Added one minor thing.


----------



## BernieP

Very interesting segment on CBS Sunday about traffic stops and who is affected most by them.
NC made it mandatory for police departments to collect and report statitics on traffic stops.
Tunrs out that African-Americans were stopped proportionally more for minor infractions than others.
Of all those stopped it was more common for young whites to have contraband in the vehcile.
Stops of African Americans resulted in far fewwer tickets and arrests than for none AA.
Among those interview was the Chief of Police in Durham / Chapel HIll (?)  who took that information and the number of confrontations and changed policy.   Cops no longer stop and search vehicles for a turn signal light or minor equipment infractions.  Instead they are focusing on more serious infractions.   Ironically the number of tickets, arrests and conviction rates are higher wiht fewer problems with the community.
The lesson is that while SCOTUS has upheld certain descrentionary powers the police must have, there is a practical and sensible limit.

I'm not AA, nor am I close to being a teenager and I have been stopped for things that were either minor or a fabrication.
But because I don't fit the "profile" of a potential offender, I've been given a written warning.
I did have my vehicle visually searched and was questioned - geez officer, the kids and the luggage wasn't a clue we were leaving early for vacation, did you really need to ask what we were doing so early?   BTW, you had no way to see that I did not come to a complete stop, because the STOP line is back from the intersection and from where you were you would not have seen my vehicle.
It's annoying when you've done nothing to be stopped and questioned - what are you doing - why are you out now - etc.
When't it's random - it's an inconvience.   When it becomes more routine, it becomes a major PIA and if you can't see how someone would be on edge, well you have rectal cranial inversion.


----------



## Clem72

BernieP said:


> When you get someone who is violently trying to resist, and is uncoopertavte (for whatever reason), you have 3 choices; the taser (non-lethal force); shoot them (lethal force); or let them walk.



FYI Tasers are "less lethal" force, not non-lethal.  They can cause significant health complications and kill people all the time (approximately 1100 since the year 2000 directly attributed to tasers). It's got a higher mortality rate than shooting a suspect in the leg.


----------



## PrchJrkr

The way these guys jump or drop when tazed (tazered?), I think I'd rather take my chances with lead.


----------



## BernieP

Clem72 said:


> FYI Tasers are "less lethal" force, not non-lethal.  They can cause significant health complications and kill people all the time (approximately 1100 since the year 2000 directly attributed to tasers). It's got a higher mortality rate than shooting a suspect in the leg.


I understand that, but I thought the term used was non-lethal force (as opposed to a weapon intended to used with as lethal force)

I was taught that you only pulled your service weapon with the intent to shoot.  And that when you shoot, you shoot to kill.
Both "rules" or axioms are meant for the protection of both the officer and the publc.
If you are in a life threatening situation you must act without hesitation, if not, then drawing a loaded weapon can escalate the situaiton and lead to an accidental discharge.   Shoot to kill means aim for the center of mass, less likely to miss or have the bullet pass through and put bystanders at risk.

So to subdue a violent, but non-life threatening subject, less than lethal force, taser, rubber bullets, mace, pepper spray, would be used.
Of course all of those can be lethel if used improperly or the subject has a medical conditon.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

The entire City of Glendale is corrupt.


----------

